American General Life Insurance Company v. Fuqua et al

Filing 34

OPINION and ORDER Denying Defendant Michael Fuqua's 33 MOTION for Reconsideration - Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (FMos)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
American General Life Insurance,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case no. 14-cv-14173
Hon. Judith E. Levy
Mag. Judge Michael J.
Hluchaniuk

Michael Fuqua, Carl Stewart, and
Swanson Funeral Home, Inc.,
Defendant.
______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT MICHAEL
FUQUA’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [33]
I. Background
This case is before the Court as an interpleader action filed by
American General Life Insurance (“American General”) as a result of a
dispute over life insurance benefits from a policy held by Ethel Baker
(the “decedent”). Defendants Michael Fuqua, the decedent’s nephew,
and Carl Stewart, the decedent’s grandson, each claim they should be
the sole beneficiary under the policy. (Dkt. 1.)
On June 12, 2011, the decedent applied for a life insurance policy.

Stewart was listed as the sole beneficiary. (Id. at 8-11.) On September
7, 2011, Ethel Baker completed a change of beneficiary form, and she
listed Fuqua as the primary beneficiary and Stewart as the secondary
beneficiary. (Id. at 55.) On January 17, 2014, the decedent completed a
second change of beneficiary form and listed Stewart as the sole
beneficiary of her life insurance policy. (Id. at 57.) All of the forms
were signed by the decedent and an agent witness, Warren Woodard.
On March 10, 2014, the decedent died, and on March 21, 2014,
Fuqua wrote a letter to American General alleging fraudulent activity
by Stewart.

(Id. at 59.)

American General filed this complaint on

October 29, 2014.
On October 30, 2014, the Court entered an order directing that life
insurance benefits, in the amount of $15,690.68, be deposited with the
Court’s registry into an interest bearing account. (Dkt. 5.) On May 12,
2015, this matter came before the Court for oral argument on Michael
Fuqua and Carl Stewart’s cross motions for summary judgment. Fuqua
requested a period of discovery because he believed the evidence would
show that Stewart engaged in fraud to become the sole beneficiary or
2

that the decedent did not have sufficient mental capacity to make the
final change of beneficiary.
The Court had a hearing and oral argument was heard. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the Court granted Stewart’s motion for
summary judgment and ordered the disbursement of funds for the
reasons set forth on the record. (Dkt. 32.) The Court determined that
there was no evidence suggesting that the final designation of
beneficiary should be set aside and that additional discovery would be
futile.
On May 22, 2015, Fuqua filed a “Request for Rehearing Under
Any Rules Federal That Appl[y],” which the Court now construes as a
motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting Stewart’s
motion for summary judgment and denying Fuqua’s motion for
summary judgment or for additional discovery.
II. Analysis
Local

Rule

7.1(h)

allows

a

party

to

file

a

motion

for

reconsideration. Motions for reconsideration should not be granted if
they “merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either
3

expressly or by reasonable implication.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). To
prevail on a motion for reconsideration a movant must “not only
demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties and
other persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but
also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition
of the case.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). “A palpable defect is a defect
that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain.”

Witzke v.

Hiller, 972 F. Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 1997). The “palpable defect”
standard is consistent with the standard for amending or altering a
judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

Henderson v. Walled Lake

Consol. Schs., 469 F.3d 479, 496 (6th Cir. 2006).
In his motion for reconsideration, Fuqua argues that the Court
failed to take note of two pieces of evidence in the decedent’s medical
record: (1) on February 7, 2014, the decedent’s family expressed
concerns about the decedent’s psychological condition, and (2) on
January 2, 2014, a doctor noted that the decedent was negative for
behavioral problems, confusion, and agitation. (Dkt. 33.)

4

This evidence was already considered, either explicitly or by
reasonable implication, in the Court’s order granting Stewart’s motion
for summary judgment. For that reason, the motion for reconsideration
will be denied. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3).
The family’s concern about the decedent’s psychological condition
was made three weeks after she completed the change of beneficiary
form. (Dkt. 33 at 3.) This subjective concern is contradicted by the
objective medical evidence. As the Court previously noted, on January
2, 2014, a doctor wrote that the decedent was oriented with respect to
place and time, appeared well-developed, and was in no distress. (Id. at
5.) Fuqua points to what he characterizes as a confusing statement by
a doctor made at this same exam – that the decedent was “[n]egative for
behavioral problems, confusion, and agitation.” By “negative” for these
conditions, the doctor means that the decedent did not show signs of
such problems.

These objective evaluations demonstrate that the

decedent was capable of making a decision about her life insurance
beneficiary, or at least that no factual question has been raised

5

indicating that she was unable to competently make a change of
beneficiary.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that:
Defendant Michael Fuqua’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 33)
is DENIED.
Fuqua asks in the alternative for a copy of the May 12, 2015
transcript from the oral argument to support his appeal. Mr. Fuqua is
directed to www.transcriptorders.com.

Dated: May 28, 2015
Ann Arbor, Michigan

s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on May 28, 2015.
s/Felicia M. Moses
FELICIA M. MOSES
Case Manager
6